So, a bishop near the end of his long career, firmly mired in the stale old ideas of yesteryear, bravely soldiering on under the baggage of the 1960’s, is still objecting to the Holy See’s norms set for liturgical translation.

His Excellency Donald W. Trautman of Erie is nothing if not consistent. He reminds me of a guy who might go to the same old restaurant every day for lunch, sit at the same place every day, and order exactly the same sandwich… but to do so in Rome.

Here is the story with my emphases and comments:

BY DANA MASSINGdana.massing@timesnews.com [more details]

"Ineffable."

The word worries Erie Catholic Bishop Donald W. Trautman.

He doubts that "John and Mary Catholic," sitting in their church pew, would understand it. [Two things here. Again and again His Excellency has demonstrated in his comments about liturgical translation and the new norms that he doesn’t not believe that you are very smart. He thinks you are too dumb to understand the prayer. He thinks you are too thick or detached to wonder what it means if you don’t immediately understand and then think about it or look it up. Also, he thinks that every prayer must be immediately able to be clearly understood. This leaves no room for the effect of mystery.]

That’s why Trautman will try to tell other U.S. bishops that such words shouldn’t be in a new English translation of the Roman Missal.

U.S. Catholic bishops are holding their June general meeting today through Saturday in Orlando, Fla. They are expected to vote on an English version of the portion of the Roman Missal involving prayers for seasons like Advent and Lent, unless Trautman can convince them to delay a decision on the translation.[He wants to delay … the … translation. Get that? Because surely we haven’t waited long enough.]

"I am at this point reserved about endorsing it," Trautman said two days before the start of the meeting. "I will try to speak on the conference floor to point out what I consider some major deficiencies in the translation." [Please, O God Almighty and Omnipotent Father, in your ineffable way inspire the bishops of the conference to keep this fellow in check.]

A presentation on it is likely today, with voting probably on Friday, he said.

The portion of the Missal being discussed is the Proper of Seasons.

"These would be the prayers at Mass for the opening prayer, the prayer over the gifts, the prayer after Communion," Trautman said. "These would be the prayers for all of Advent, Christmas, Lent, Easter and then the Sundays of the year." [I have a copy of the draft of these prayers. I think you would like them.]

The Vatican wants a translation more faithful to the original Latin text. [Not … just … the VATICAN!]

Trautman said the draft includes words such as "ineffable" that would not be in the ordinary vocabulary of people.

"This should be the prayer of the people," Trautman said. "I’m not for having street language. … We should certainly have elevated tone, but words like that are just beyond the common comprehension." [Okay… figure that out. Elevated language but not comprehensible.]

Catholics coming out of a lunchtime Mass at Erie’s St. Peter Cathedral weren’t familiar with "ineffable."[WDTPRS asks … SO WHAT? The problem here is that if you make everything immediately comprehensible to the lowest common denominator it will wind up being pretty much like what we have now in the old lame-duck ICEL prayers:

God,you are big.Help us be big like you.

If people hear and interesting word, they might… oh my gosh… wonder what it all means and slowly but surely get the idea that monosyllables and grunting might not actually convey what the Latin prayers convey.]

According to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition, the word means "too overwhelming to be expressed or described in words; inexpressible; too awesome or sacred to be spoken."

It’s "not in my daily language," said Shirley Skiba, a member of St. Luke Catholic Church in Erie. [Maybe Shirley shouldn’t be the measuring stick for the language of liturgical prayer.]

Skiba said words used in the Mass should be "something we feel comfortable with." That’s the case with the current translation, for the most part, she said. [Enough said.]

"I think it should be language the everyday person can understand," she said.

Trautman called parts of the proposed translation "archaic" and "just clumsy language." [Then His Excellency should take the time to explain it to Shirley.]

One proposed change, for the first week in Advent, would replace "old way of life" with "ancient bondage," the Erie bishop said.

"Ancient bondage is very ambiguous and not clear enough to the people," he said. [Yes. But there is a problem. I ask you, dear reader, does "old way of life" mean the same thing, even on the surface, as "ancient bondage"?]

Regarding another change, he said, "They speak of ‘into the joy of true peace.’ Well, we would say ‘rejoice in true peace.’ That’s much more understandable." [However, entering into a state of joy means something different than simply being joyful.]

In another vote related to language, the bishops will decide whether to replace "vosotros" with the more familiar "ustedes" in Spanish-language Masses in the United States. Trautman compared using "vosotros" in Spanish to using "thou" in English. [Aaaaaaaaand…. that would be… bad?]

…

Listen as Erie Catholic Bishop Donald W. Trautman talks about what the U.S. Catholic bishops will be discussing during their June general meeting Thursday through Saturday in Orlando.

Some English words might be hard, but they are the perfect word to do the job. To replace that word, you need a circumlocution or paraphrase. That makes translations overly wordy. But it is part of the very nature of Roman prayer to be concise. Even the concision is meaningful.

86 Responses to Bp. Trautman doesn’t think you are smart enough to understand the proposed new translation of Mass

Trautman compared using “vosotros” in Spanish to using “thou” in English.

How tiresome are His Excellency’s remarks.

“Vosotros” is standard contemporary Spanish and is said and written daily by millions. The question is whether Latin American Spanish is to be considered standard despite the fact that in translation Christ would then be addressing His disciples as though He did not know them in Castilian Spanish.

Additionally, I would truly be overjoyed if we were allowed to use the second person singular in English during liturgical rites, archaic as it might sound to some.

What’s funny is that he is all about dynamic equivalence, but that in a sense is a linguistic relativism. What may be sufficient for communication today won’t be in forty years. He wants a translation that is so droll that it blends in with our vernacular. Thus the USA needs a separate Roman Missal from Canada, which is a separate one from Jamaica and so on. What’s even more irritating is that the good bishop wants to have the faithful wallow in everday language, no elevated diction because they will whine “I’ve never heard of it” which trikes me as a sort of xenophobia in a linguistic sense(apologies for my word choice, but the mentality seems to be “Since I’ve never heard of it, it ain’t real to me”). By the way, since the present ICEL prayers are so drab because they do *accomplish* what the good bishop wants, they don’t tend to stick with me anyways. So the present ICEL translations are doing a DISservice to the faithful.

What makes the Catholic liturgical prayers so wonderful is their timelessness…elevated diction at least attempts to approximate that in our vulgar vernaculars. Here’s to hoping that the present USCCB CDW gets the translations right.

But, but, but: “ineffable” is one of my favorite words! I’m not just saying that–I remember encountering it in High School or freshman year of college, looking it up, and immediately falling in love with it. It is a beautiful thing to understand that God is ineffable. :)

Strange, there had accumulated about 30 comments over the day on the original story. None of them were all that flattering to Bp. Trautman, but a couple were somewhat supportive. I have written to the paper asking why?

I have had some lengthy conversations with my pastor over this issue. His criticisms of the new translation effort are twofold, both from a stylistic angle and a philosophical one.

His first complaint is about the complexity of these new prayers. He would disagree with Bp. Trautman and say that the people will be able to understand them, but he thinks that the priests will have a hard time reading them. They wouldn’t be able to “roll out of bed” and read the prayers, which he says could be done now. He is arguing that these prayers ought not need practicing before mass, which he thinks these will need.

His second complaint, which is perhaps the more fundamental one, is the worry that one philosophy of translation is being usurped by another. He perceives that a dynamic equivalence is being replaced by a literalism from above.

I welcome the changes, and the sooner the better. I have seen the proposed texts for the mass parts, and they, though not perfect in my mind, are much improved over what we have. I hope and pray that the Holy Spirit will inspire the Church, and these Bishops to work to improve the way which we express the perfect and Divine liturgy.

What’s so wrong with the adjective “ineffable” anyway? Look it up in a dictionary or, even better, what a great subject for a homily! His Lordship of Erie might even like to consider how the similar word “awesome” has become part of the everyday vocabulary of most young people (at least those I mix with as a Military Chaplain). Now who could have predicted that in the time we’ve been waiting for the new English translation of the Roman Missal?

The problems of the translator are always twofold. It is not just the case of turning the words intelligibly from one language to another but it is doing this at the same time as conveying the exact meaning behind the words. The latter task is always the more difficult and in the case of the liturgy is surely the more important.

Fr Z’s ‘God you are big’ is a good example of correct English but devoid of sacred meaning. We all need a translation to lift us up but it looks as though the bishops are having a hard time agreeing. In the meantime – ‘Sursum Corda; habemus ad dominum’.

Like you I have been privileged to see the proposed translation for the Proper of Seasons, both in Green Book and Grey Book form. All I can say is that I am very impressed with them. From my reading of them, I see nothing in them about what Bishop Trautman is afraid of. Personally I find the prayers wonderful, for the first time people will actually be able to get a sense of what the Latin is saying (at Mass), instead of the poor paraphrases we are stuck with today. One of the downsides is that knowing that good translations are on the way makes listening to the current ones even more painful. In my opinion the translation of the Latin accords with the requirements of LA, that is translating the Latin faithfully and integrally into English, without being so slavishly accurate that they are awkward or incomprehensible. The translations are modern English, not of the variety that would be used when chatting with friends nor of a technical nature used in technical manuals, but of an elegant literary style. Language that lends itself to being memorable. Language worthy of the sacred.

Surely priests explaining to their flocks what the meaning of the prayers is forms part of their mission and something they do in every homily? You would think most would be happy to have the opportunity to deepen people’s understanding of our faith which should be prompted by a new translation. I for one can’t wait for a return to more prayerful, reverential language, rather than the current platitudes we have in some parts of the mass.

Yet another example of dumbing down. It hasn’t occurred to me before, but maybe traditional language (and perhaps doctrine) is “kept from” the laity because we are “not intelligent enough”? After all, the wondrous, complex, timeless, and – yes – ineffable ways of God are so easily explicable…

I too have seen a translation of parts the new Missal translation, and it is much to be preferred. I can’t wait for it to come out. But I dread a further delay.

I wonder now how we can get people to bow during the Creed? Perhaps the words “All bow” are not explicit enough?

In reply to Matthew’s suggesiton that the prayers of the Mass be explained in the homily, this is not really the purpose of the homily. The homily, as part of the Liturgy of the Word, should focus on the readings that preceed it and not on the collects and prayer over the gifts. These prayers may from time to time help to shed light on the readings of the day but very often don’t. It is difficult enough for priests to compose homilies that will keep peoples’ attention without wandering off into the meaning complex prayers. It is silly and idealistic to think that people will listen intently to a homily that tries to cover too much and goes on forever in the process. We have all suffered at the hands of priests who try to do this. Certainly catechesis will be reqired when the new translation comes out but I think a better way of going about it might be the inclusion of a glossary of complex terms that could be put in the weekly newsletter.

Are the bishops even reading the same Sacrosanctum Concilium as the rest of us?

II. The Promotion of Liturgical Instruction and Active Participation

14. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.

Yet it would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing this unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it. A prime need, therefore, is that attention be directed, first of all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy.

How hard can it be to tell that INSTRUCTION (e.g. education, catechesis) PRECEDES (and trumps, in my opinion) change? I mean, SC n. 14 says it plainly enough: “pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve [the active participation of the faithful], by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.”

Arch-heretics they may have been, but I think you have to go a long way to beat the prose (and translation skills) of Cranmer (his collects, especially) and the psalms and Roman (or Sarum?) Canon translations of Coverdale.

I find it interesting that Bp. Trautman has a lower opinion of Americans’ intelligence than Andrew Lloyd Webber does. I first heard the word “ineffable” at the age of 12; it’s among the lyrics of “Cats”. John & Mary Catholic aren’t bright enough to understand showtunes?

Damien – the homily is not simply an exposition of the Scripture. The Council of Trent desired that “during the celebration of mass [pastors] expound … some portion of those things which are read at mass, and that, amongst the rest, they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on the Lord’s days and festivals”. The GIRM (n. 13) reiterates this idea.

I would say that the Collect at least can be exposited in the homily, for two reasons: 1) if it’s really meant to “collect” and set the tone for the prayer of the Mass, it should already be relevant enough to mention in the homily; and 2) the people have already heard it (but not the super oblata and post-Communion prayers), and having a greater understanding of the Collect, they might pay closer attention to the other two prayers and see the connection they have to the Collect and the particular celebration of Mass.

I’m not saying homilies shouldn’t be exposition of the sacred texts, just that there’s far more content proper to the homily than commonly misconceived.

I’m glad the “vosotros” issue has come up at least indirectly, and I’m sorry if my comment goes off a little, but it’s pertinent I think. It is indeed quite an issue -because although it is only used in Spain in contemporary Spanish – the Latin American pronoun “ustedes” evolved from Vuestras Mercedes (Your Lordships) from classical old Spanish. Vosotros is readily recognized in its classical use also in Latin America, it is used in literature, in poetry, and it was not accidental I don’t think that it was incorporated into the first missal translations in Spanish. It is not language that you will hear on the streets of Montevideo or Monterrey or Managua – YES, it is more “elevated” language, language set apart, language not used by “Juan and María Católico” after Mass, but readily intelligible to them during Mass. Though even in Latin America, CELAM has approved various Missal translations that incorporate “ustedes” (among other things like inclusive language and dumbed down prayer translations), many priests still use “vosotros” by customs, especially at the Consecration. This would be comparable to the removal of “thou” from the Our Father, etc.

Bishop Trautman is right; I’m not smart enough to understand on my own.

That’s why I need the Church to instruct me, especially in and through the liturgy. I’ve learned so much from the TLM that it has greatly enriched my appreciation of the NO liturgy as well.

The last thing I need is to have the liturgy, Church teaching, or devotions to be “dumbed down” or made easier for me (such as by moving Thursday Holy Days to the nearest Sunday). I need to be challenged in my faith.

Jeff,
I take your point that the homily is more than an exposition of the Sacred texts. However, I would like to meet the priest who is able, if not on a day-to-day basis, on a weekly basis to delve into both the liturgical texts and the Scriptural texts of the Mass in a way that does not turn the homily into a long theological tract. When the new translations of the texts come out it seems that their explanation will be more frequently necessary and this should not, in my opinion, take the consistent foreground in the homily which should mainly focus on breaking open the Word of God as, He is present in the Scriptures (GIRM 29). I suppose you could say I am putting the explanation of God’s Word before the explanation of our prayer to God. Only when the former is achieved can the latter truly be carried out. I’m not saying that these two things cannot be accomplished in a single homily, I’m just saying it’s difficult.

As for the admirable suggestion that the explanation of the collect might draw a greater understanding of the other prayers, I not sure it would help people understand certain vocabulary that might be contained in them, which is surely the whole point of the current debate.

I take your point that the homily is more than an exposition of the Sacred texts. However, I would like to meet the priest who is able, if not on a day-to-day basis, on a weekly basis to delve into both the liturgical texts and the Scriptural texts of the Mass in a way that does not turn the homily into a long theological tract. When the new translations of the texts come out it seems that their explanation will be more frequently necessary and this should not, in my opinion, take the consistent foreground in the homily which should mainly focus on breaking open the Word of God as, He is present in the Scriptures (GIRM 29). I suppose you could say I am putting the explanation of God\’s Word before the explanation of our prayer to God. Only when the former is achieved can the latter truly be carried out. I\’m not saying that these two things cannot be accomplished in a single homily, I\’m just saying it\’s difficult.

As for the admirable suggestion that the explanation of the collect might draw a greater understanding of the other prayers, I not sure it would help people understand certain vocabulary that might be contained in them, which is surely the whole point of the current debate.

When will the Holy Father take end the nightmare, Vatican Council II which is the destruction of the Holy Roman Catholic Church? Hanging on by threads here. [Well… this an out of place exaggeration, I think. We weaken our just position… that of having the right to the the Church’s liturgy… when we make these statement. – Fr. Z]

This, personally, speaks to the ability of not only what seems to be a large majority of pastors/priests/bishops to be able to teach, but it also speaks to the ability of modern society to learn rather than just being told what to know.

This makes me remember fondly something that my parents told me after I spent a year at community college. They said that the degree is a measure of one’s ability to deal with issues of personal responsibility and shows to the future employer that one is able to handle this as well as minimum level of problem-solving skills. Not sure how true this would be today, seeing a large majority of students at the university that I am attending to pursue graduate studies, but again this would just go to show the vast difference in mentalities between those who want to learn and those who are merely memorizing stuff long enough to get a competent score on a test so that they can secure a job that they will not be able to bring any skill set to.

Bishop Trautman, unfortunately, represents a large group of people who have neither had the time nor the inclination to think of the things of God in an adequate enough sense so as to be able to competently teach them to others. I equate this mentality to someone who comes up to one of the apostles and asks how they can know God better, with the answer being something to the effect of “Why don’t you ask him?? Oh wait you don’t know how to hear him as well as us.” It’s sad that alot of these modern-thinking apostles and priests have succumbed to the relativistic and deconstructionist mentalities that allow noone to see them as successors of the apostles. In some cases, they turn people away simply because noone can believe them to be worthy of that association.

I pray very hard for them, because their job is made much harder by their insistence that the people who sit in the pews are incapable of knowing anything that they might preach on with an educated level. In my opinion, they are just making it worse by equating marriage to a contract, or some other relative equivalence example. It’s very disheartening.

…and furthermore, we also have some mistranslations present in the Spanish Missal translations, though not nearly as bad as those produced by ICEL in the ’70s… I wonder out loud if the same USCCB is as interested in correcting these errors and omissions as they are in removing “vosotros.”

Apostle1977: I used to teach a high school course on the Creed, and one of the first things I would do is explain when and where to bow. Then I would ask how many new that, and without fail, even the most Catholic of the students would raise their hands and say, “No one ever told me that.”

What drives me–and I think I’m in good company here–nuts about self-proclaimed “liberals” is that they claim to want to even the playing field, so to speak. You know, the old argument that the traditional Mass was “us down here and them–the holy ones–waaaaaaaaaay up there.” Well, I chose not to be a priest. I am thankful for the men who did, and I think that the deserve a little honor, a little credit, and a little respect. Good priests, in my experience, are servants–they don’t “lord it over” us poor laity. I have no problem–in fact, I love a proper understanding of roles. Anyway, I’ve often gotten into arguments with intelligent people who assert that “most people don’t understand x, y, or z.” When I say, “Let’s catechize’em,” they roll their eyes as though I were insane. One woman complained about her parish’s singing the “Sanctus,” noting that “No one sang along because no one understood it!” (I’ve been to her parish…the vast majority sing along…) I fail to understand how not teaching folks is somehow better than pointing out that they might need to invest something in their faith.

On a slightly related topic, does anyone know where things stand on reception of Communion? The same woman from above–a former nun–informed me that if we don’t receive permission to continue Communion in the hand, many people would leave the US Church. “It’s a hard teaching,” I said. “Who can accept it?” She just nodded her head in assent. I don’t think she got it.

I’ve read Weigel’s response. I can’t remember when it appeared, but I believe it was written in response to Trautman’s diatribe on the subject that appeared in “America” magazine about a year ago.

Apparently Trautman thinks we’re stupid, or lazy or both. James Garrison wrote (above) that his pastor objected because “he thinks that the priests will have a hard time reading them. They wouldn’t be able to “roll out of bed” and read the prayers, which he says could be done now. He is arguing that these prayers ought not need practicing before mass, which he thinks these will need.” So maybe it’s not the PIP’s who are stupid or lazy after all.

JG: His first complaint is about the complexity of these new prayers.?

New prayers? There are no new prayers in the proposed new translation. Almost all these proper prayers were contained in the original 1970 edition (in Latin, of course) of the Novus Ordo missal; only a few new ones were added in the 1975 and 2002 editions.

What happened in the early 1970s is that — instead of actually translating the original prayers — ICEL largely replaced them, in the 1973 English translation we’re still using at Mass, with new baby talk prayers that reflected neither the content of the structure of the originals.

But now Liturgiam authenticam demands that the new translations be accurate and faithful in both content and structure. So both priests and laymen will have to learn both English and Catholicism, from almost scratch if necessary. About time, surely!

I, too, have been privileged to see the new translation drafts as they have gradually come out. They are quite excellent, overall. I am hopeful that, once in use, they will highlight just how drippy some of the “contemporary” texts we have been singing these past forty years really are. Think of your grandmother’s fine china and silver setting being used to serve Hamburger Helper.

Hopefully, my science students will be able to share a similar story to melody. I teach 6th-11th grade students in a Catholic school and we begin each period with prayer. I use a shortened verion of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Prayer Before Study. It begins, “Ineffable Creator, you are proclaimed the true font of light and wisdom.” Every year I make a point the first week to ask what “ineffable” means. Most don’t know, but quickly learn.

People will learn if they don’t know! One thing we’re taught in “teacher school” is that students will rise (or sink) to your expectations. Let’s expect more of the people at mass!

Melody: As for me, I wait to pray, “Lord I am not worthy to have you under my roof, but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed.”

Why wait? Why not go ahead now, and say it correctly. The priest at the altar must say precisely what he reads in his altar missal, but you in the pew can pray as you feel proper. I myself say (quietly so as not to outrage anyone nearby) “Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea”, just as it reads in the altar missal Pope Benedict uses when he celebrates Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. And just as I frequently carry the actual Latin propers with me to read silently as the priest reads aloud the 1973 ICEL-neutered versions.

“Ineffable God”
“Ineffable” is easy, but the meaning of the word “God”, that has been the object of my prayer, study, thought for over 50 years.
I wonder whether the bishop might want find another word?

They wouldn’t be able to “roll out of bed” and read the prayers, which he says could be done now. He is arguing that these prayers ought not need practicing before mass, which he thinks these will need.

I say that if these priests would get up sufficiently early to pray the office, they wouldn’t have this problem, because they would have already read the collect at Matins and Lauds.

Lets have a Latin-English bilingual Missal. I understand
that some faithful have a stronger literary education
than others, but our Church leaders should help to
enlighten their flocks in more than one way.

When comparing the OF Missals from Spain and Mexico, it is
clear that one was translated for the third world.

I\’m afraid you are completely out of line. Your description of the current texts of the Mass as \”stupid, banal, inane, ungrammatical\” is not only, in my view, blasphemous considering that they ARE, whether you like it or not, approved elements of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite but is also an insult to priests and faithful everywhere who have gained spiritual nourishment down through the years through these prayers.

Furthermore, your description of the Bishops involved with the translation of these texts as \”a joke\” is a further slight on the Church. Perhaps they didn\’t produce the best translations but that is no reason to doubt their genuine attampts to interpret the will of the Holy Spirit. They are Pastors of the Church and deserve the public respect of their flock.

To suggest that the current translation of the prayers of the Mass are the sole reason for the departure of so may Catholics since Vatican Council II (since you mention nothing of socio-cultural and economic reasons I presume you are suggesting so) is simply immature. I, as a faithful Catholic all my life, have never considered leaving the Church for such a reason and neither have most Catholics. Those who leave under the pretence of such reasons are only looking for any reason to leave.

Finally, I thank God for the form of the Mass and its prayers that have sustained me and many others in the Way of the Lord through the years. Your comments, devoid of any charity or respect, lead me to believe that your faith and its practice go no deeper than the cover of your dog-eared Latin Missal. I pray that the Lord will remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26).

I\’m afraid you are completely out of line. Your description of the current texts of the Mass as \”stupid, banal, inane, ungrammatical\” is not only, in my view, blasphemous considering that they ARE, whether you like it or not, approved elements of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite but is also an insult to priests and faithful everywhere who have gained spiritual nourishment down through the years through these prayers.

Furthermore, your description of the Bishops involved with the translation of these texts as \”a joke\” is a further slight on the Church. Perhaps they didn\’t produce the best translations but that is no reason to doubt their genuine attampts to interpret the will of the Holy Spirit. They are Pastors of the Church and deserve the public respect of their flock.

To suggest that the current translation of the prayers of the Mass are the sole reason for the departure of so may Catholics since Vatican Council II (since you mention nothing of socio-cultural and economic reasons I presume you are suggesting so) is simply immature. I, as a faithful Catholic all my life, have never considered leaving the Church for such a reason and neither have most Catholics. Those who leave under the pretence of such reasons are only looking for any reason to leave.

Finally, I thank God for the form of the Mass and its prayers that have sustained me and many others in the Way of the Lord through the years. Your comments, devoid of any charity or respect, lead me to believe that your faith and its practice go no deeper than the cover of your dog-eared Latin Missal. I pray that the Lord will remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26).

I recently had an amusing nightmare where I was forced to say Mass (even though I’m not a priest), and after my ‘homily’ I was given a text for the Credo to use called “Creed at Mass for Toddlers” and it went something like this:

“I love my truck, my red fire truck.
We have fun with Daddy when he takes us to the beach on Sunday.
Because my Daddy loves my Mommy
(all bow) and me we are happy,
and we have tasty fish sticks with ketchup
to eat on Friday night…”

The pope himself has called the entire new rite of Mass “banal.” Hardly blasphemous.

The Church in the U.S. just got a report that showed the devastating effects of the 40-plus years of their inanity while droves have left the Church. To state that those who leave “are just looking for a reason” is in fact, immature.

What about pastorally assisting the “one loss sheep”? Perhaps the translation you have read for 40 years hasn’t accurately conveyed this thought.

People have left the Church for many reasons–poor catechesis, disagreement on birth control, banal liturgy, etc.

This 40 years of trying to get translations correct (boy, I would be fired from my job if it took 40 years for me to get a press release translated correctly) could have all been avoided by keeping the Traditional Latin Mass and spending more time evangelizing as Lumen Gentium (shock and horror of horrors!!!) calls bishops explicitly to do in Lumen Gentium par. Nos. 23-25.

But no. We get more tripe from FishPerson worrying about people understanding “ineffable.” He is not the only one. He and his ilk are A JOKE–naturally speaking. They waste time in stupid committee meetings discussing English translations (when none of them are English majors) from Latin (which most of them have very little even rudimentary knowledge of).

Something I read this week in a daily Mass (in the Traditional Latin rite) about “when the blind lead the blind.”

Despite internet assertions, Pope Benedict, as Cdl Ratzinger, did not ever call the Novus Ordo “banal.” The often quoted statement is clear, in context, in its condemnation of abusive innovations, but in no way criticizes the new Mass itself. He also bemoans the fact that others isolate themselves from the Church because of an attachment to the old Mass, but he is not criticizing the EF either.

What really bugs me about the good bishop is his concern for the ignorance of the Catholic laity. Granted things have changed since I was a kid but we were always taught, in Catholic school, to look up the words we didn’t understand in any book or whatever. That is how Catholics always won the “spelling b’s”. Even if we don’t know a certain word at the time when we are at Mass we are reasonably sure it is more respectful words than we would use on the street. I don’t think the liturgy was designed to “dumb us down”. Maybe we could send Bishop Trautman a copy of Webster’s latest.

Might I remind you that it took the Church 1545-1563 years to develop the liturgy we now call the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Relatively speaking, 40 years is quite a short time. I am ammused and somewhat alarmed by the comparison you make between the care and consideration due hundreds of liturgical prayers and the translation of some press release or other.

Once again, and for your own good, I advise you against going around defaming Bishops. It’s probably not a good idea to call them “blind”. They are the successors of the Apostles who, as we know from Scripture, were far from perfect. They obviously don’t have the gnostic insight into how the Church should be run with which you have been clearly blessed.

I guess I’ll never understand so-called “liberals.” They masquerade as champions of the “people” and then turn around and
denigrate them the first chance they get. My late grandmother barely got past freshmen year in high school but was a voracious
reader and could write prose like a Harvard Don. I’m extremely confident she could handle the new translations and would find
Bishop Trautman’s intervention on her “Behalf” highly offensive. That should really bother Bishop Trautman since “causing offense” is the
greatest sin in the liberal lexicon. Tom

The PROBLEM with translation is that as soon as it is not “literal” (close as possible)it is opened up to and bound to be “colored” by agendas.

Result,

-Undermining the reverence
-Language wars
-“Graying” of exact meanings
-Dumbing down
-Anti-poetic
-Eardrum fatigue/damage (Do we all know what “fatigue” means? That means we are tired, as in ‘tired of the “B.S.”‘ Also called “dung” in older translations.)
-No conveyance of elevated, nuanced thought and culture, shades of meaning, etc., through language, something the church has always been good at.

AS a visitor to the Eastern rite lately, I find that they, devoid of much of this agenda driven pap, translate elegantly to the vernacular, in a style reminiscent of the Rheims-Douay Catholic Bible of years past, i.e., lofted language, and not infused with too many (if that really is an issue) of Thee’s and Thou’s. No gender neutral “God wants God’s people to do God’s will” nonsense.

I thought of this when I read a quote from London’s newly elected mayor Boris Johnson a few weeks ago. I don’t think anyone’s ever accused Boris of being “of the people,” but it was still nice to see his use of “consubstantial” in an interview.

I guess I’ll never understand so-called “liberals.” They masquerade as champions of the “people” and then turn around and
denigrate them the first chance they get. My late grandmother barely got past freshmen year in high school but was a voracious
reader and could write prose like a Harvard Don. I’m extremely confident she could handle the new translations and would find
Bishop Trautman’s intervention on her “Behalf” highly offensive. That should really bother Bishop Trautman since “causing offense” is the
greatest sin in the liberal lexicon. Tom
Comment by TJM

From Fr Rutler:

“Considerable erudition was at work in those years, but too often its populism overruled the people. It was like Le Corbusier sketching a new metallic Paris. Marini complains about “a certain nostalgia for the old rites.” In doing so, he contradicts Pope Benedict’s distinction between rites and uses, and he also fails to explain why nostalgia for the 1560s is inferior to nostalgia for the 1960s, except for the dentistry.”

Despite internet assertions, Pope Benedict, as Cdl Ratzinger, did not ever call the Novus Ordo “banal.” The often quoted statement is clear, in context, in its condemnation of abusive innovations, but in no way criticizes the new Mass itself. He also bemoans the fact that others isolate themselves from the Church because of an attachment to the old Mass, but he is not criticizing the EF either.
Comment by Antiquarian

I agree with the folk here that affirm that lowest common denominator thinking is untenable. Are we to do away with words like “salvation” too? One thing the study of languages (Latin!) gives a person is an appreciation for etymology. We should give no ground to those who would dumb down language in favour of “mass” appeal. The kind of “Mass” appeal we should be insisting upon is of a kind that involves elevated language purified of the trappings of the banal. The cause of literacy is best served when the symbols, words and gestures we employ invite people to discover something beyond themselves. I would wager that everyone craves ritual, for ritual is the artful embodiment of the Mystery we Catholics know as the Most Holy Trinity. To say that “we know” the Trinity is to say that we are, by the grace of God, growing in the knowledge and love of the Triune God. It is no wonder that the Church has suffered a general loss of mystery and reverence toward holy things. That a bishop would claim that the word “ineffable”, a word connoting silence, pointing to something beyond words, etc., is not comprehensible to the common man is surely confirmation that we have lost an appreciation for silence and mystery. Our lack of comfort is seen in the attempt to fill every second of the Liturgy with sound. How do we recover a sense of the sacred? – bring back words like ineffable, words that, even if they defy immediate translation, invite the listener to enter that puzzle in order to stretch the imagination and understanding. People will rise to the occasion. People will accept that such words appeal to them as intelligent beings capable of refined thinking. Furthermore, isn’t it a teacher’s job to provide support for learning (the truths of the Faith)?

In defense of my pastor, he is up every morning to pray the offices. What he really meant was that the prayers ought not need practicing, and they shouldn’t be complicated enough to be able to stumble over the words/phrases.

I think a more fundamental issue is the fact that most people don’t pay any attention anyways to the prayers, which is all the more reason for the prayers to be translated better. In this way, those few who do pay attention and do care will be better enlightened.

According to John Allen of NCR, this happened at the NCCB meeting yesterday:

Auxiliary Bishop Richard Sklba of Milwaukee, for example, said, “If I have trouble understanding the text when I read it, I wonder how it’s going to be possible to pray with it in the context of worship.”

At the risk of sounding disrespectful, maybe the bishops think that not only are the PEOPLE too stupid, but also…

Gosh! Doesn’t anybody have to read stuff like Shakespeare or Canterbury Tales in high school English anymore?

(Through a simple and direct reading done in some national language, the people understand little or nothing, especially if the text is difficult, such as the Epistle to the Hebrews, or some readings from the Old Testament, or the Book of Revelation, etc.)

Cardinal Bacci did not think the vernacular translations would achieve the desired goal of increased understanding among the people and he stated:

I’m shocked about the “roll our of bed” argument. Isn’t the raison d’etre of priests to preach the Word of God (hopefully with the fire of conviction) and to celebrate the sacraments (hopefully with reverence)? Seems like priests ought to read over the day’s liturgical texts anyway in preparation for their day’s work, and if they don’t, why would you admit it?

I do think objections to “gibbet” (“gibbet of the Cross”) in a text to be used in the US are apt. First, it’s pretty clear that what the English language refers to as a “gibbet” is not what the Latin is referring to. So it’s not an accurate translation. There is probably no accurate translation because the Latin is referring to something that did not exist in the English-speaking world. In any event, Americans know “gallows” but not “gibbet”, and “gallows” is quite inaccurate, too.

“Gosh! Doesn’t anybody have to read stuff like Shakespeare or Canterbury Tales in high school English anymore?”

Yes, and those are far more difficult to read than the new translations.

What a bunch of philistines we have in the bishop’s conference!

Curiously, the revised (liberalized) Episcopal 1979 Book of Common Prayer replaced the Cranmerian phrase “unspeakable joys” in the All Saints Day Collect with “ineffable joys,”
presumably because “unspeakable” was too confusing to modern audiences, as in “unspeakable crime!” So, what will it be bishops? Unspeakable? Ineffable? Somethine else?

My reaction to Trautman’s objections? INEFFABLE! Or at least unprintable.

What is this? “No Parishioner Left Behind”? It is absolutely insulting to be treated like this and utter patronization of the highest (or lowest, as it were) order. Is there any way to find out after the vote who voted which way? I’d certainly like to know what direction my bishop is going in.

If words like “ineffable” had been used regularly in the liturgy over the last 40 years, they would BE familiar to Joe and Mary Catholic. And if they are used starting now, in a very few years they will become familiar, especially to the younger worshipers, who are still fascinated with big new words.

What I find most profoundly disturbing (and insulting) is the apparent underlying assumption that we are neither interested in nor capable of learning.

Speaking now only for myself, a prayer which is immediately and completely understandable is a prayer which slides over and out of my mind, leaving said mind free to wander off into thoughts of what to cook for supper, or tomorrow’s schedule, or other trivia.

A prayer with some complexity and “meat” will hold and focus my attention much better.

Fighting distractions is a struggle anyway. Why make it harder than it has to be?

I wish your comment were that true. Unfortunately I have seen some translations of the Divine liturgy that are as banal as the crrent English edition of the Novus Ordo. Thank God our Bishops have not required one single translation. A Fr. Vaporis did a translation some years ago that has become somewhat standard in the Greek Archdiocese. H died a few years ago; too bad his translations weren’t interred with him. Our American culture seems to foster this kind of mess.

Damien said: I’m afraid you are completely out of line. Your description of the current texts of the Mass as “stupid, banal, inane, ungrammatical” is not only, in my view, blasphemous considering that they ARE, whether you like it or not, approved elements of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite but is also an insult to priests and faithful everywhere who have gained spiritual nourishment down through the years through these prayers.

There is nothing blasphemous about Brian’s description of the current mistranslation of the Roman Missal that we’ve been enduring all these years. His description is precisely accurate. Sorry, but it’s not blasphemous to say that bishops’ conferences and Vatican curial officials are capable of making stupid decisions, such as approving a hasty, sloppy, incompetent “translation” of the Roman Missal. When I go to English-vernacular Mass, I just resign myself to the fact that most of what I heard will only approximate what the Latin Church intends us to pray during Mass. The sooner the first-ever translation of the Missal into English is completed and approved, the better.

Really, if you’re offended by Brian’s comments, then please don’t read, oh, most of St. Jerome’s letters, especially those that deal with Rufinus . . .

P.S. Giles Hawkins, you have a draft of the Ordo of the Mass. What is under consideration at this time are the Proper prayers.

“The pope himself has called the entire new rite of Mass “banal.” Hardly blasphemous.

The Church in the U.S. just got a report that showed the devastating effects of the 40-plus years of their inanity while droves have left the Church. To state that those who leave “are just looking for a reason” is in fact, immature.

What about pastorally assisting the “one loss sheep”? Perhaps the translation you have read for 40 years hasn’t accurately conveyed this thought.

People have left the Church for many reasons—poor catechesis, disagreement on birth control, banal liturgy, etc.

This 40 years of trying to get translations correct (boy, I would be fired from my job if it took 40 years for me to get a press release translated correctly) could have all been avoided by keeping the Traditional Latin Mass and spending more time evangelizing as Lumen Gentium (shock and horror of horrors) calls bishops explicitly to do in Lumen Gentium par. Nos. 23-25.

But no. We get more tripe from FishPerson worrying about people understanding “ineffable.” He is not the only one. He and his ilk are A JOKE—naturally speaking. They waste time in stupid committee meetings discussing English translations (when none of them are English majors) from Latin (which most of them have very little even rudimentary knowledge of).

Something I read this week in a daily Mass (in the Traditional Latin rite) about “when the blind lead the blind.”

)(

I agree with you, Brian. There are many reasons why people left the Church and not just because they were looking for a reason. It’s also because they were forced out. When, as you described, the Faithful were lacking any pastoral guidance, they had no understanding, nowhere to turn. Instead what they got was condescension and ridicule for not immediately embracing the “New.” It’s been described to me by those who lived through that time as “like when fascists come to power and how they treat those who wish to cling to the “old ways.”

I am FED UP with these Trautmans of the world. How does he know what the average Catholic in the pew will or won’t understand? I find his attitude offensive to me, and am insulted by his presumption. All those who are against the Holy Father’s changes and reorienting back to the Tradition of this Church are those whom the Holy Father has thrown water on their Wicked Witches.

As others have observed, there is a wonderful book called a dictionary. I was introduced to it in the second grade. If one doesn’t understand a word, one can look it up. This expands the vocabulary. (Heck, I had to look up refulgence the first time I ran across it in the latest Lectionary.) I guess the lay faithful are too backward to own one.

Also, using language that is not excessively familiar has the advantage of requiring one to think about what is being read. It also sends the message that what we are doing in the liturgy is different from ordinary life. This is precisely what we need to do in the liturgy where Heaven touches earth.

This is far from the first time I’ve mentioned this–sorry if I’m sounding like a “nag”–but, despite the excellent progress which the current draft gives us, it still contains a rather significant step backward… one which, in my opinion, is far more insidious than the worst of the banalities of the current ICEL text (loathsome though that is, and soon may it die!):

“For us [word deleted] and for our salvation, He came down from Heaven.”

Maybe I’m just being thick-headed at the moment, but I don’t recall any other instances in which specifically “gender-inclusive” language was inserted in the Canon or Creed of the Mass (not counting the illicit “local” adaptations of “Orate, fratres… [etc.]”). The fact that it’s contained in the central statement of Faith in the Holy Sacrifice gives it an extraordinary importance, in my mind.

I don’t seem to be alone, either:

[quote from “Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal”, by Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez (Prefect, CDWDS), Rome, 16 March 2002; quoted from http://www.adoremus.org)]

III. Examples of problems related to questions of “inclusive language” and of the use of masculine and feminine terms

A. In an effort to avoid completely the use of the term “man” as a translation of the Latin homo, the translation often fails to convey the true content of that Latin term, and limits itself to a focus on the congregation actually present or to those presently living. The simultaneous reference to the unity and the collectivity of the human race is lost. The term “humankind”, coined for purposes of “inclusive language”, remains somewhat faddish and ill-adapted to the liturgical context, and, in addition, it is usually too abstract to convey the notion of the Latin homo. The latter, just as the English “man”, which some appear to have made the object of a taboo, are able to express in a collective but also concrete and personal manner the notion of a partner with God in a Covenant who gratefully receives from him the gifts of forgiveness and Redemption. At least in many instances, an abstract or binomial expression cannot achieve the same effect.

B. In the Creed, which has unfortunately also maintained the first-person plural “We believe” instead of the first-person singular of the Latin and of the Roman liturgical tradition, the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term “men” has effects that are theologically grave. This text ­”For us and for our salvation”-no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The “us” thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.

Seriously: does anyone know if the Vatican is able (be it canonically/legally, or socially/diplomatically) to accept the current translation, but “manually” change/insert/delete isolated words or phrases, *without* sending the whole mess “back to committee [i.e. USCCB, ICEL, etc.]”? Is it feasible for the CDWDS to send it back, saying, Yes, this will do… and we hope you don’t mind, but we’ve reinserted the word ‘men’ into the translation of the Credo”? Or would “romanita”, “collegiality”, and Vatican diplomacy require that it be sent back for the USCCB’s “imprimatur”?

Whenever I hear H.E. (Bishop Troutman) and others “carp” (no pun intended–at least, not when I first typed it!) about the current translation, I can’t help but think that such noice could be an effective (sorry again!) red herring which would lull the liturgically orthodox into a mindset of “Ah! They’re really upset! We must be doing something right!”, and which could cause them to gloss over the “small [sic] step backward” re: feminist ideology. I’m seriously worried about this, and I’m somewhat puzzled that so few people on this forum have even mentioned it…

With all due respect: what sort of snarky, condescending piffle was *that*?

In Christ,
Brian

Starting to think about BACK TO SCHOOL items? Even text books? When you shop…

... through Amazon, please, come here first? Enter Amazon through my search box. I'll then get a small percentage of everything you buy. (Pssst - Can't see the search box? Turn off your "ad-blocker" for this site!)

Search Fr. Z’s Blog

Search for:

"In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. ... If all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians." CDF 2003 and HERE

Support them with prayer and fasting.

CLICK and say your Daily Offering!

Leave Voice Mail for Fr. Z

Nota bene: I do not answer these numbers or this Skype address. You won't get me "live". I check for messages regularly.

WDTPRS

020 8133 4535

651-447-6265

Let us pray…

Grant unto thy Church, we beseech
Thee, O merciful God, that She, being
gathered together by the Holy Ghost, may
be in no wise troubled by attack from her
foes.
O God, who by sin art offended and by
penance pacified, mercifully regard the
prayers of Thy people making supplication
unto Thee,and turn away the scourges of
Thine anger which we deserve for our sins.
Almighty and Everlasting God, in
whose Hand are the power and the
government of every realm: look down upon
and help the Christian people that the heathen
nations who trust in the fierceness of their
own might may be crushed by the power of
thine Arm. Through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee
in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world
without end. R. Amen.

Yes, Fr. Z is taking ads…

... and there will be nearly 1,000,000 page loads this month.

Traditional Catholic? Are you single? Don’t want to be? CLICK!

Help Monks in Wyoming, Fr. Z, and get great coffee too!

And they have tea too!

Because you don’t know when you are going to need to move fast or get along without the supermarket…

Great gift for newly ordained priests. Folding altar card set for the Traditional Latin Mass.

And check out the stunning FULL SIZE altar cards HERE. I have a set on my altar.

New Gregorian Chant CD by the Benedictines of Norcia!

Wyoming Catholic College!

A great place in Rome…

Identity theft is a serious problem that you do NOT want to have. I use Lifelock.

And for your cybersecurity…

My wish lists

Main Wishlist Kindle WishlistAudio WishlistHam Radio ListNEW

Food For Thought

“The legalization of the termination of pregnancy is none other than the authorization given to an adult, with the approval of an established law, to take the lives of children yet unborn and thus incapable of defending themselves. It is difficult to imagine a more unjust situation, and it is very difficult to speak of obsession in a matter such as this, where we are dealing with a fundamental imperative of every good conscience — the defense of the right to life of an innocent and defenseless human being.”

- St. John Paul II

A bit more food for thought…

“Only one sin is nowadays severely punished: the attentive observance of the traditions of our Fathers. For that reason the good ones are thrown out of their places and brought to the desert.”

For your consideration…

"One of the most dangerous errors is that civilization is automatically bound to increase and spread. The lesson of history is the opposite; civilization is a rarity, attained with difficulty and easily lost. The normal state of humanity is barbarism, just as the normal surface of the planet is salt water. Land looms large in our imagination and civilization in history books, only because sea and savagery are to us less interesting."

- C.S. Lewis

More food for thought:

“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.”

Check out the Cardinal Newman Society feed!

Be a “Zed-Head”!

Fr. Z’s stuff is everywhere

More food for thought…

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 176

Even More Food For Thought

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties:
1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.
2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests."

To set up a recurring, monthly donation (even a small one) go to the bottom of this blog and look for the drop down menu! Some donations also come through Chase/Manhattan (if you don't like PayPal).

I remember benefactors in my prayers and periodically say Mass for your intention.

Additional Food For Thought

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Fathers, you don’t know who might show up! It could be a “big fish” of one sort or other…

What people say…

"Father John Zuhlsdorf is a crank"
"Father Zuhlsdorf drives me crazy"
"the hate-filled Father John Zuhlsford" [sic]
"Father John Zuhlsdorf, the right wing priest who has a penchant for referring to NCR as the 'fishwrap'"

Help the Sisters. They have a building project. Get great soap (gifts, etc.) while helping REAL nuns!

Food For Thought

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites. . . . Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

Archives

ENTRY CALENDAR

Do you use my blog often? Is it helpful to you?

If so, please consider subscribing to send a monthly donation. That way I have steady income I can plan on, and you wind up regularly on my list of benefactors for whom I pray and for whom I periodically say Holy Mass.